Forum Replies Created
January 25, 2020 at 2:58 pm in reply to: London Congestion Charge: Blue Badge holders (fully exempt) #104085
That’s not quite all the facts:
From TFL’s own website:
You don’t have to pay the Congestion Charge or register with us if the vehicle is recorded at the DVLA in one of these categories:
Two-wheeled motorbikes (and sidecars) and mopeds
Emergency service vehicles, such as ambulances and fire engines, which have a taxation class of ‘ambulance’ or ‘fire engine’ on the date of travel
NHS vehicles that are exempt from vehicle tax
Vehicles used by disabled people that are exempt from vehicle tax and have a ‘disabled’ taxation class
Vehicles for more than one disabled person (for example Dial-a-Ride) that are exempt from vehicle tax and have a ‘disabled’ taxation class
Therefore, if your Motability vehicle (or even your own vehicle) is taxed as disabled, don’t bother with the ‘blue badge’ exemption and registering or paying the fee – you are exempt anyway due to its taxation class.
The other option is to get one of the few vehicles on the scheme that come as standard with either ‘3 season’ or mud & snow (M&S) tyres as standard equipment.
An exmple being the Jeep Renegade Trailhawk 4wd auto (AP £881) which comes with mud & snow tyres fitted as standard.
The Jeep Compass Trailhawk 4wd auto (AP £2631) has them fitted as well.
The trouble is you have to search through numerous vehicle brouchure specs to spot them.
If it is the dealership I ‘think’ it is (not certain, as I was never based in the area I am thinking of), they regularly offer quite big discounts on new/used cars to serving military and veterans which are not available to the general public (adverts regularly in Navy News etc). Veterans need to show proof of former service or use a code from the restricted access Defence Discount site in order to get the discounts.
Within that context, perhaps they thought they were overlooking disabled veterans on Motability. Hence the offer could be viewed purely within their overall policy of giving discounts for military and veterans, as opposed to it being a purely ‘disabled’ thing.
If it is indeed the dealership I am thinking of, they are signatory to an Armed Forces Corporate Covenant, which along with other various things they state they will do (employ ex-forces wherever possible, allow employees to be members of the reserve forces and give them paid time off for such etc), they do say they will offer a discount to serving personnel and veterans. Hence, I suppose if they don’t give a discount to all veterans (disabled or not) they are in breach of their signed covenant!
Lots of other companies likewise give discounts to military and veterans, indeed only yesterday the Secretary of State for Transport announced the new Veterans Railcard giving 34% off train travel for all veterans (to be launched on 11th November 2020 if any veterans are interested, albeit I presume many here may have a disabled railcard already).
I think that is more along the lines of what they probably intend.
Whatever, it is a pity I am not due to change vehicles yet as a new Audi would certainly be on my list.
This is a difficult one for me Mike, its great that a deal is available and i can understand why the dealership wants to keep it quite from non military disabled, but it doesnt sit right with me.
I suppose it is the obverse to when a dealership was offering £500 off Motability AP’s (not cashback, but a straight £500 off the AP’s) but for War Pensioners there was no offer as the vehicles were nil AP on WPMS!
Each to their own and all that I believe I am correct to the point I’ve just rang the Glassline number 0300037994 stated I’ve shattered my drivers side window is there any excess to pay I’m a Motability Customer. After checking NO was the reply but there is a £50 charge on the Windscreen. Obviously I didn’t continue as I’ve not broken my side window.
Exactly what I was told both when I rang the glass line, and when the Autoglass chap appeared with the new FOS (front drivers side) window. All nicely fixed with me soon on my way home. Great.
Then the invoice arrived……………….
Subsequent phone call to RSAM – yes, I did owe the £50 excess as the window was replaced and not repaired.
They made apologies over why the excess hadn’t previously been mentioned. Unlike with some insurance policies, with Motability you do not have to fork out the £50 at the roadside (by credit/debit card) and it is usally invoiced.
If I had a scanner here – would scan in the invoice!
I apologise if my comments have been misconstrued I was merely trying to confirm the OP’s question YES Side windows Are Still Nil
But a referenced extract from Motability’s own website clearly states:
If your window or windscreen needs to be replaced, you must make a claim through RSAM. You will need to pay an excess amount of £50.
How can that be any less clear – if a window or windscreen needs to be replaced, one will need to pay an excess of £50.
With respect, your quote has not been misconstrued – it is plainly wrong, as is your ‘confirmation’ to the OP.
Do you have a link to claim the free AA card?
Dougie, Sorry for the delay in replying, I don’t venture in here that often. To get the complimentary ‘AA Disabled Drivers Assistance Card’ just ring Veterans UK on 0800 1914 218 and ask for one. They will do a couple of security checks and check that you receive WPMS. A few days later, the card (redacted copy below) should drop through your letterbox in a brown envelope: Dave
I applied for this but just received a letter from Veterans UK telling me that as I have a Motability agreement in place, I’m not entitled to it as breakdown assistance is included. ?
That is a fairly recent policy change then, as I have had constant Motability agreements over many years and only earlier this year applied for and received the complimentary AA card.
I am not sure why the policy has changed, as it doesn’t cost Veterans UK anything (other than postage) to send out the card and it costs the very same postage to write and tell you that you cannot have one!
The AA (and formerly the RAC when they offered a similar membership) used to just send a batch lot of cards to Veterans UK (or SPVA as was) for them to send out to WPMS recipients who asked for one (noting that these cards were never openly advertised).
Unless the AA have imposed the restriction for some obscure reason, but as they are signatories to the Armed Forces Covenant, I can hardly see that happening – they like good PR hence signing the Covenant.
I will try to follow it up at the Veterans Advisory & Pensions Committee meeting I am attending next month and see what Veterans UK’s rationale on the policy change is.
I think the position is far from clear, the information given by Motability in their summary is contradictory, the summary does state but you will need to read your insurance cover booklet for full details The summary mixes up similar terms Repair or replacement of glass If your window or windscreen needs to be replaced, you must make a claim through RSAM. You will need to pay an excess amount of £50. I suspect that the full insurance document will have the terms fully defined, glass, in my view would encompass window or windscreen however I doubt that the wording is so loose in full agreement.
Just as an aside to this, in the aviation industry, there has been a distinct move away from using the term ‘glass’ for window/windscreen components.
This has been due to the fact that many windows in light (and some heavy) aircraft are made from non-glass polymer composites to save on weight and the fact that ‘glass’ is increasingly used nowadays to refer to instrumentation (as in ‘glass cockpits’ – meaning LCD/LED instrumentation as opposed to traditional dials/gauges).
Hence I agree the word ‘glass’ nowadays has such wide-ranging meanings, it more or less renders the word ubiquitous. So much so that the component (and not what it is made of) becomes the descriptor in general parlance.
If your window or windscreen needs to be replaced, you must make a claim through RSAM. You will need to pay an excess amount of £50.
(which is a link from the page JS posted above – entitled ‘Windscreen and windows’ – top right of JS’s link)
Seems to cover window or windscreen.
I suppose being, pedantic, it should say window(s) in case of plurality.
DaveNovember 7, 2019 at 4:20 pm in reply to: Is There Any Makes or Models of Vehicles That Never Get Leased on Motability #95561
I was wondering if there was any makes or models of vehicles that are on the Motability scheme that just never get leased
I would say possibly yes in cases where a manufacturer wants to be seen to be offering a certain vehicle/model on the scheme, but for commercial/political or other reasons negotiates a stupidly high Advance Payment that only someone insane would pay.
Thus, they are seen to offer the vehicle but are almost sure no one will buy one.
A case in point may-be the current Vauxhall Astra Automatic with the cheapest DLA/PIP/AFIP Advance Payment being £1399. Compare this Advance Payment to the equivalent Peugeot/Citroen automatics from the same company (PSA) or even a competitor vehicle such as the Ford Focus etc.
It is obvious that PSA don’t want to sell many (if any) Vauxhall Astra automatics on the scheme as there are so many much better value automatic vehicles for much less advance payment.November 7, 2019 at 3:59 pm in reply to: Does /Should Motability now what Our Individual Disabilities Problems Are #95558
I was wondering if Motability was aware of our disabilities , illnesses or problems that we all have as a customer that entitle us to the higher rate of PIP and maybe care component of PIP, So when we look to lease a car through Motability, they would know what type of vehicles to make available to suit our needs .. I dont think they do , but I was thinking perhaps they should now so it might give them a better understanding into the type of vehicle that would be suitable for our needs, wider cars higher up cars seats ect, It might mean there would be a lot of more suitable vehicles available
Unless you want to open a huge Data Protection nightmare – I would say no, certainly not.
Put it another way – would you be happy for details of your disability and your associated needs being passed to a private company, who may then in turn pass your data on to another (such as a car dealer etc). So that Fred down at xxxxx car dealer knows you have cancer for example?
Mind you, I sometimes think Veterans UK don’t know I still exist, let alone know how my disability now affects me, but as long as they keep paying the war pension and wpms I am happy enough.
Arnold Clark Mazda (Nationwide) are offering a £200 ‘dealer contribution’ off the AP of the Mazda 3 at participating dealers only, for vehicles registered before 31st December 2019 only.
For attn of WPMS recipients – this isn’t too good a deal on WPMS as most of the Mazda 3 range is nil AP in any case. I just wish they would offer cashback instead of ‘dealer contributions’ as it levels the playing field across all allowances used on the scheme.
I feel there is a great deal of moaning amongst some as to the scheme, surely these people could be considered as being very ungrateful, if they feel so strong then I can only suggest they go and get off the scheme and go buy there own car, and before they say I must have plenty of money I definatly do not, I just save and am most grateful to the scheme, take care
No one was moaning about the scheme in this thread, nor being ‘ungrateful’.
We were mainly discussing why Vauxhall suddenly have very high Advance Payments for what was once, one of the most popular cars on the scheme – the Astra – which used to have very reasonable (ie cheap) AP’s, but no longer.
I was speculating as to whether or not this had anything to do with the takeover of Vauxhall by PSA (Peugeot/Citroen) and whether perhaps PSA could be now ‘favouring’ cars built closer to their home rather than in the UK.
It certainly was not ‘moaning’ and I think that all the contributors to this thread do value Motabiity highly.
Or have you posted in the wrong thread as your post seems somewhat out of kilter for this thread?
Very expensive for the higher spec models, especially as VW will be trying to get rid of these given the new model comes out soon.
Unless the parts bins for the high spec models are running low and VW want to sell the remaining high spec models more profitably to private customers (without the huge discount given to Motability). Hence the rather high AP’s for them – to supress demand from Motability customers.
It has the double advantage for VW that when the new Mk8 model appears on the scheme, they can crow about what good value it is compared to the older models.
The first auto Ford Focus £295 //// The first auto Volkswagon Golf £799 //// The First auto Vauxhall Astra £1399. //// love the scheme. I think they are taking the PISS does anybody else ?????????????
Vauxhall used to be one of the ‘cheaper AP’ manufacturers on the scheme and used to sell a lot of vehilces to Motability. That was, however, before PSA bought them.
Bearing in mind that PSA are also marketing Peugeot, Citroen and to some extent DS marques ‘in volume’ to the scheme, I wonder if this is a ploy by PSA to favour the French built vehicles by keeping the AP’s of Vauxhall artificially high?
Bearing in mind the Astra sits in the same segment as the 308/C4 bracket I bet that is why the Peugeot and Citroen have cheaper AP’s.
As to the future – will there eventually be an announcement from PSA that as Vauxhall are no longer selling cars in high volume, it is bye bye Vauxhall?
Yet another model that they cannot work out the AP of:
Unless of course, it is completely free – which I doubt somehow!November 5, 2019 at 8:53 am in reply to: Should we collectively open up the biggest can of worms ever? #95190
Having been a Motability customer for the past 35 years, I do not recall ever getting a customer satisfaction survey sent to me.
I seem to be forever getting the dammed things. Nearly every time I contact them I get some sort of survey or other about it meeting my needs, was my call answered quickly, how welcoming was the person whom I spoke with etc etc.
That has solved your query Mitch.
Motability have now removed it instead of putting a price on it.
It is still showing on the Nissan pdf brochure of course.
Yes, conversely, you can also have a vehicle with a £248.87 AP and still be on fixed weekly payments. The key is also how much the weekly payment is set at though.
It seems to be a fairly wide margin between when a vehicle is on fixed weekly payments and when it becomes Total Allowance. Obviously with ‘Total Alowance’ all future CPI annual increases go to Motability, whereas with fixed weekly payments the customer keeps in annual increases.
I think the Juke is probably at the lower end of the spectrum, probably just requiring a very small AP (your quoted AP of £0.36 is a good example) and whatever fixed weekly payment they set (be it £68.35 or slightly less) or nil AP with Total Allowance.
I did once ask Motability if they could supply me details of what the cut-off point between the two was, only to be told it was ‘commercially sensitive information’.
Infact, having now looked at it on the Nissan site, the JUKE DIG-T 117 DCT TEKNA Petrol Automatic has a DLA/PIP AP of £1009, which on WPMS would put it firmly in between the ‘Fixed Weekly Payments’ and ‘Total Allowance’ territory – it could go into either (with an AP and fixed payments or nil AP and Total Allowance).
I think that is maybe what the problem is. A decision just needs to be made one way or the other.
Mitch, I remember something similar about 8/10 years ago or so.
I can’t recall which vehicle/manufacturer it was, but it was on WPMS and the situation was caused by the price of the vehicle in question either requiring a small AP and fixed weekly payments or a nil AP and Total Allowance. It was on a knife edge as to which should apply,
I think the manufacturer wanted it one way, but Motability wanted it the other way.
It was sorted out in a few weeks and I believe Motability won out.
Of course, it came across as ugly, I all but stated that my feelings were somewhat unreasonable, and while I am well aware of the terms of my lease, my point was (supposed to be) that rules are rules, true, but blindly following a rule for no other reason than “Because it’s the rule” is completely counter-intuitive. I run my own business and we have “rules” but I regularly bend or break them when there is no, or next to no loss to me or my customer AND there’s a benefit to either or both of us. The truth of the matter is, there really wasn’t a downside for Motability from allowing me to get the car early (but still well within the final 3 months when they will allow you to order) but there would have been a substantial benefit on both sides. I’d have had the car I wanted, and they’d have had a confirmed continuing customer for another three years. Win-win, both sides benefit which, personally, I think is EXACTLY the time when you should bend a rule. Rules should, in my opinion, always be a guideline, and if there’s a GOOD reason not to stick to the letter of them, then that’s the time to consider if it’s better for everyone if there’s a little flexibility, so I repeat (ironically the one thing no-one mentioned in the comments.) that I believe rules should be taken with a little common sense to get the best overall outcome for everyone. This was never about me bitching about not getting what I wanted, it was about the missed opportunity for both sides of the situation to benefit, ultimately resulting in BOTH sides being worse off.
If you find that Motability are so rigid that they do not meet your flexibility requirements, then why use the scheme? Surely if you want the flexibility to change cars whenever you like, you should go down the private purchase route. Then you are totally free to change vehicles whenever you wish.
For a lot of people on this forum, Motability is a lifeline, without which they would be stuck, unable to afford a reliable and comfortable vehicle. As such they avail themselves of Motability and comply with Motability’s rules which to be honest are hardly onerous in comparison to taking out a private PCP/Lease plan. Particularly with regards to cost, early terminations, minor damage, damage caused by wheelchairs etc.
Motability make the rules to apply to everyone, not to someone trying to game the system or have ultimate flexibility on when they can change their cars. We as customers accept those rules as part of the package. It is not a case of ‘rules for rules sake’. The rules are there to protect the scheme and customer.
With respect, if you don’t like Motability’s rules, you are free to not have another car on the Motability scheme and find a supplier/scheme/solution that can meet your mobility requirements.
DaveNovember 1, 2019 at 5:28 pm in reply to: Should we collectively open up the biggest can of worms ever? #94741
A Forum Sticky to be accurate would only contain the information as set out by Motability as all other information is Opinions and experiences, and All Statements and procedures are found on the New And Improved Customer Website. (Yes that is sarcasm) https://www.motability.co.uk/ with reference to voicing things to Motability, I’ve always been of the opinion that 1000 individual voices are better than 1 umbrella voice, motability isn’t a one size fits all and a lot of things are on an individual bases, motability already have people in place that Do mystery shop, reviews, articals,questions and answers,reports etc, details of which and contact numbers can be found in the Motabilty LifeStyles magazine. They also have a Have Your Say Section. I would suggest this established recognised route would be the best port of call. http://motabilitylifestyle.co.uk/
I totally concur that ‘big business’ indeed does take more notice of a number of well constructed individual complaints as opposed to a ‘collective’ complaint which often can seem somewhat ‘engineered’ to prove a point.
A well constructed and evidenced individual complaint, sent by formal letter as opposed to e-mail or telephone seems to always receive attention.
One person who I have found to be very responsive is actually Lord Sterling (Chair of the Motability charity) as formal letters sent to him at the House of Lords are generally passed to very senior execs at Motability Operations (such as Mike Betts (the former CEO) and Declan O’Mahoney). Lord Sterling also follows up on the complaints should they not be resolved ot the customer’s satisfaction.
Sadly just speaking with the general Customer Service agents at Motability rarely bears any fruit.
As regards to the ‘Have your say’ in the Highlife Magazine, I am aware of a number of Motabiity customers who have sent in genuine but ‘adverse to Motability’ items which never see the light of day in the Highlife magazine. It seems to only publish ‘positive’ items as opposed to anything critical of Motability.
A couple of weeks ago I contacted Motability about my next car. At the time one of my local VW dealers had the exact car I decided to order, in stock, available immediately. I asked Motability if that was ok and was told that it was not – I could not have the new car before the exact date of my lease ending. The only reason I can think of for this is the 9 weeks of payments they wouldn’t get, totalling what, £550? Since then the car has had it’s MOT, new pads in the front, and a full service, not to mention that I guess, technically it has dropped further in value as it’ll now be over 3 years old when it goes back instead of less than 3 years old (yeah I know that won’t make a huge difference) but I’m pretty sure they’re already in the red on that decision… I’m a reasonable man but I’m having a little internal giggle at the situation – tried so hard to get that last £500, it’s probably going to cost them at least that or more at this point… Rules may well be there for a reason but they should always be applied with a little common sense (although I’m the first to admit that’s a bit of a misnomer nowadays and common sense is anything but common)
It has always been the case that you have to keep your vehicle for 3 full year term before taking delivery of your next vehicle (early terminations aside). That is as per your contract with Motability.
If they ‘bent the rules’ for you simply because your next vehicle was already at the dealers, where would it end when the next customer’s car is ready at the dealer’s 10 weeks before the end of their contract and so on.
The cost of any repairs and the MOT would be factored into the price anyway, and also having the 12 month MOT means Motability would receive more when selling vehicle either through their dealer network or auction etc. Hence any feeling of ‘karma’ or ‘giggles’ that you have cost Motability extra expense would be negligible in the overall picture.
I am sure you would not have been happy if Motability had said go-ahead and get your new vehicle early, only to then sting you with an early termination fee and also loss of your Good Condition Bonus – as you were infact wanting to terminate your contract early.
You may believe that Motability have been inflexible in your case, but in reality all they have done is stick to the contract which you agreed to by entering your PIN when collecting the vehicle in the first place.
Partridge mini in Hampshire have also jumped on the £500 off AP on listed below Motability 3 door Mini’s for orders placed until 31st December 2019.
As it is money off the AP, it is not such a good offer for WPMS recipients as the savings would be negligible.